header-logo header-logo

26 March 2010
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Family

D v D [2010] EWHC 138 (Fam), [2010] All ER (D) 162 (Mar)

The “need principle” might have a large and informative and possibly determinative part to play in assessing a departure from equality, but an assessment applying the sharing principle in all the circumstances still had to be carried out. A departure from equality would generally not reduce an award below the amount of an award based on need.

When determining whether there should be a clean break, the points to be considered were: (a) the assessment of the risk that the lump sum or lump sums ordered could not be paid absent a sale of the shares or a liquidation of the company; (b) the assessment of the consequences of such a sale should that risk materialise; and (c) the assessment of the fairness of an award premised on a sale of the company at the present time. A true clean break based on a lump sum or two or more lump sums could not be achieved fairly, notwithstanding the advantages to both sides that would flow

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Employment boutique strengthens data protection and privacy offering with senior consultant hire

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll